all in seeing to it that the welfare of the people is properly protected. There are great compensations in providing something in addition to product; in providing something that enhances the community's welfare. I mentioned a few moments ago how Allen Christensen put us into the land making business across the Bay. He didn't do it for fun. Or charity. Or out of civic righteousness. He did it to make money for the Company. But the prospect of creating new land on which overcrowded Alameda could build homes and shopping centers was more than a monetary challenge. It had the added incentive of providing the solution for a serious civic problem. The City of Alameda recognized this. It saw an opportunity to expedite a much needed expansion program by encouraging private industry to undertake a monumental and expensive construction job. Accordingly, the City entered into a contract with Utah Construction Company. To me, the South Shore project is a good example of how the community welfare can be served when public spirit and private initiative get together to lick a problem and make a mutual profit. What, then, about my third--and final--point? What about the even less tangible incentives that move private industry to public-spirited activities? Why do companies such as ours, already spread too thin at the top management level, send from their ranks the men and women who pro-vide much of the backbone for civic and charitable activities--the Chamber of Commerce, the United Crusade, the Red Cross and others? Why do they dip into their profits to support schools and libraries, research, science, and the arts? Frankly, working for the public welfare pays dividends because it creates the climate of economic health in which business fares best. But 9